🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <o8gAsaDbYEr4EwHe@jsunderwood.demon.co.uk>, John Underwood
<john@jsunderwood.demon.co.uk> writes

>If I cannot understand the question, or be reasonably certain that I
>have understood it, but think, from what I can understand, that I may be
>able to answer it if it is explained better, then I will ask for
>clarification. Usually, I think, I succeed in doing this in a fairly
>open, not too critical way (but since I am drawing attention to some
>kind of mistake, it is bound to contain some element of criticism). I am
>afraid I do not react well to an attack on the ground that I should be
>more understanding, that I am looking down on someone and so one when I
>am trying to help and have gone out of my way to show that by asking for
>help in understanding the problem.

I agree completely. If you want someone, out of the kindness of their
heart, to waste their time giving away free information (that they
probably worked hard to get) to save you time and effort then I find
that abject grovelling works quite well. It's about the only way in text
to show you **really do** appreciate the help, and it costs nothing.

People who bite the hand that would feed them deserve a slap round the
chops. The end of a boot is optional.

>In this case, the same inadequate question was asked repeatedly before
>anyone had a chance to look at it. I am sorry, but I do not go along
>with the explanation that it could be a newcomer. I would find that
>pretty offensive behaviour in almost any circumstance where someone were
>trying to enlist my voluntary help.

Agreed, see above. An intelligent person would spot the faux pas and
back off fast. See mason for a non-intelligent person.

>However, Os, as far as I can tell, nothing that I or anyone else has
>written in this thread applies or should be taken as applying to you,
>for whom I have the highest admiration and respect. 

Er, um, this is unfamiliar territory ...
[Have you been imbibing?]

>(Which doesn't mean
>I won't tell you if I think you are wrong about something :-) 

Phew! That's a relief!

>- unless I
>can't understand it in which case I'll ask you to explain it again).

You better had. I wouldn't want you answering the wrong question...

Now, about OS2 and the LS120 ......  :-)

-- 
Oz